Tell your U.S. Senators to support S.2324, the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act, to amend FIFRA to create a federal right of action for anyone who is harmed by a toxic pesticide. Sign the petition HERE.

On April 1, 2026, U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), 36 State Legislators, and 21 State Attorneys General filed briefs in support of John Durnell and against Monsanto, in Bayer-Monsanto’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking immunity from pesticide-harm lawsuits.

In 2023, a Missouri jury awarded John Durnell—who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup weedkiller—$1.25 million in damages, finding that the herbicide’s label did not adequately warn of cancer risks. Monsanto appealed, arguing that federal law (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn.

As of today, approximately 170,000 people who developed cancer from Roundup use have sued Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), and Bayer is attempting to shut down these lawsuits and block any future claims from being brought. Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup lawsuits have created massive financial liability, surpassing $16 billion in total settlements, provisions, and legal costs since 2020. As of April 2026, ongoing litigation includes roughly 65,000 active lawsuits.

If the High Court rules in favor of Monsanto, it would have far-reaching implications. Not only would it shield Bayer-Monsanto and its glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup from future health-harm lawsuits, but a favorable ruling for Monsanto would shield all pesticide manufacturers and all pesticide products from future lawsuits when the companies comply with weak and inadequate EPA pesticide labeling requirements.

Currently, China-owned Syngenta is also facing over 6,400 lawsuits from plaintiffs alleging the corporation’s paraquat-based herbicide Gramoxone caused their Parkinson’s disease.

In December 2025 and again in March 2026, President Trump’s Solicitor General filed briefs arguing that the Supreme Court should rule in favor of Monsanto. And on February 18, 2026, President Trump issued an Executive Order giving Bayer and glyphosate manufacturers legal immunity. Thankfully, a presidential executive order can be easily overturned by the next president.

Last July, Senator Cory Booker sponsored bill S.2324, the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act of 2025, which would ensure that pesticide manufacturers can be held responsible for the harm caused by their toxic products. The bill would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1972 (FIFRA) to create a federal right of action for anyone who is harmed by a toxic pesticide.

On April 1, 2026, Senator Booker filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of cancer victims, urging the high court to “adhere to the settled principle that federal preemption of state law must rest on the intent of Congress as expressed in the text and structure of its enactments, not on the advocacy of regulated parties who have been unable to obtain their desired result from the legislature.” You can read the full brief HERE.

Also on April 1, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, witha coalition of 17 other state AGs, filed an amicus brief in support of Durnell. The coalition includes Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The brief states, “Private rights of action under state common law are a form of state police power to protect human and environmental health. Amici States have a strong interest in preserving their constitutional police power and ensuring that principles of federalism are adequately considered in preemption cases.” You can read the full brief HERE.

Texas AG Ken Paxton, joined by Florida and Ohio, also filed a brief supporting Durnell. The brief states, “Amici States take no position on the merits of the underlying claims, including whether exposure to glyphosate caused respondent’s cancer and whether the use of glyphosate-based pesticides is desirable as a matter of policy. Amici States write instead to emphasize that these decisions should be made under state law, not by a federal agency. State tort law is the traditional regulatory scheme for poisonous substances, and it serves vital compensatory and deterrent purposes.” You can read the full brief HERE.

Illinois AG Kwame Raoul said, “Limiting the ability of injured consumers to seek justice through the court system is un-American and only rewards large corporations for failing to warn the public about the potential dangers of their products. I will continue to advocate for the rights of consumers to pursue justice under the law.”

A coalition of 36 state legislators—Democrat, Republican, and Independent— from Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin also filed a brief supporting Durnell. The brief states, “As state lawmakers, amici acutely understand—and have experienced—the benefits that flow from localized debate and decisionmaking. They correspondingly understand that their federal counterparts do not lightly—and should not be taken lightly—displace state law through preemption, much less make preemption depend on administrative agencies’ or executive officials’ decisions rather than statutory text. Although amici may disagree on some policy questions, all agree that state legislatures are best situated to consider the claims and remedies available to their citizens for any injuries arising from glyphosate.” You can read the brief HERE.

The Supreme Court will hear Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell at the end of April.

At its core, this case is not just about one man, one product, or one company—it is about whether everyday people will retain the fundamental right to seek justice when they are harmed. John Durnell’s story represents thousands of families who trusted that the products they used were safe, only to face life-altering consequences. If the courts close their doors to these victims, it sends a chilling message: that corporate compliance with weak standards matters more than human lives.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this case, the stakes could not be higher. The outcome will shape the future of accountability in this country—determining whether powerful corporations can evade responsibility, or whether the voices of those harmed will still be heard. This is a moment that calls for vigilance, for advocacy, and for remembering that behind every lawsuit is a person, a family, and a fight for dignity that should never be denied.

Tell your U.S. Senators to support S.2324, the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act, to amend FIFRA to create a federal right of action for anyone who is harmed by a toxic pesticide. Sign the petition HERE.

The post Lawmakers File Briefs Supporting John Durnell in Monsanto’s Supreme Court Roundup-Cancer Appeal appeared first on GMO / Toxin Free USA.

In 2025, the new FDA administration led by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kenneday, Jr., focused one of their first initiatives on removing petroleum-based food dyes from the U.S. food system. There was a call for the food industry to quickly develop natural colors as safe alternatives.

Unfortunately, we found that at least one of the colors approved and being fasttracked by the FDA, “Beetroot Red,” is produced using genetic engineering.

Phytolon’s Beetroot Red dye is produced with an extreme form of genetic engineering known as Synthetic Biology (SynBio). Yet the company, on its website, claims the dye is “non-GMO” and “natural”. This is false and misleading. Phytolon’s Beetroot Red dye would not qualify for certification by the Non-GMO Project, nor would it be allowed in USDA Certified Organics.

We must stop this before it sets a precedent for other GMO foods and ingredients developed using newer technologies. If the FDA allows Phytolon to label SynBio food dyes as “natural,” it opens the door for ingredients produced through any new, unregulated genetic engineering technique to make false and misleading “natural” claims.

The FDA opened a public comment docket for Beetroot Red. GMO/Toxin Free USA submitted a formal comment of objection to the FDA. Below is our full submission…

FDA Comment Tracking Number mme-2r2f-kect

GMO/Toxin Free USA comments on Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Beetroot Red

Document ID FDA-2024-C-1085-0003

Submitted by GMO/Toxin Free USA, PO Box 8273, New Fairfield, CT 06812

Date: 03/05/2026

Introduction

We oppose the FDA’s amending the color additive regulations to provide for the “safe use of beetroot red for the coloring of human foods.” While the attempt to shift the food industry away from petroleum-based dyes is commendable, replacing one synthetic food dye with another synthetic food dye is not acceptable. Under no circumstance should genetically engineered Synthetic Biology (SynBio) food dyes be allowed to be labeled as “natural.” Further, no products made with SynBio food dyes should be allowed to claim “no artificial colors.”

We have reviewed the petition submitted to the FDA by Phytolon for approval of its new Beetroot Red food dye produced with genetic engineering technology known as SynBio, and observed several flaws and weaknesses in the submission, including the design of the short term “safety study,” and a lack of response to FDA’s feedback and required followup. 

Phytolon has failed to provide adequate proof of safety of synthetic Beetroot Red for long-term human consumption and we are deeply concerned about the potential adverse health effects.

A summary of our findings is below:

Our Analysis of Data Submitted by Phytolon to FDA in Connection with SynBio Beetroot Red Food Dye Petition

CARCINOGENICITY

The Ames test is a widely used, rapid bacterial assay that determines if a chemical compound or material is mutagenic—meaning it can cause DNA mutations. It detects whether a substance induces genetic mutations, acting as a preliminary screening tool for identifying potential carcinogens. 

The initial Ames test, a standard regulatory requirement, was positive. Yet, the positive genotoxicity findings are dismissed without adequate justification. The petitioner’s follow-up investigations of removing ascorbic acid, adding catalase and testing purified fractions, are mechanistic studies, not regulatory safety studies. The petitioner’s explanation that this was due to a pro-oxidant effect from ascorbic acid, and thus “not relevant to the in vivo situation,” is a significant weakness as they do not demonstrate the test article is non-genotoxic in vivo. While the petitioner performs follow-up testing, e.g., mammalian erythrocyte Pig-a gene mutation assay, in vivo mutagenicity assessment using duplex sequencing in liver, stomach, and intestine tissues collected from Pig-a gene mutation assay, the FDA acknowledges that, “Follow-up testing cannot entirely mitigate the concerns raised by an Ames-positive finding, and some residual risk remains in the absence of an adequate carcinogenicity assessment.” 

The FDA suggests, “rodent carcinogenicity studies” be used, which the petitioner fails to provide. For such rodent carcinogenicty studies the the FDA recommendation is, “The test animal should be exposed to the test substance 7 days per week for 104 consecutive weeks (two years), or for the life span of the animal.”  https://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/ingredientsadditivesgraspackaging/ucm078388.htm#ftnIV

Yet, the petitioner only provides 90 day subchronic toxicity data which is inadequate to assess carcinogenicity, or even chronic toxicity. After such necessary rodent trials are completed, the enrollment of healthy human subjects in first-in-human trials would be the next necessary step before FDA approval. As long-term toxicity/carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, and developmental toxicity studies are lacking, this directly contradicts the core principle of food additive safety, which requires a full battery of tests to establish an ADI. 

The memo concludes safety based on “weight of evidence” despite these major gaps. In the “Summary and Conclusions” (Section XIV), the FDA reviewer explicitly states: “…an acceptable daily intake (ADI) for betanin could not be established because the information available to FDA did not permit that, in particular because of the lack of data from long term oral toxicity studies, as well as developmental and reproductive toxicity studies on betanin.”  These are not minor omissions. Chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity, reproductive, and developmental toxicity studies are fundamental pillars of food additive safety assessment, especially when a new production method (genetically engineered yeast) is involved. By the FDA’s own admission, the data package is insufficient to set an ADI, which is the primary goal of such a safety evaluation. Concluding that the additive is safe without this data is a logical contradiction. The “weight of evidence” is being used to fill data gaps that are explicitly designed to be filled by these very studies.

FLAWS IN SHORT TERM STUDY – INCONSISTENT DOSING

According to the memo, “PhytoPurple concentrations in prepared diets of groups 2 to 4 were analyzed in weeks 1, 6, and 12 and the mean sample concentrations were within or equal to 65-85% of target concentrations based on the responses of betanin and iso-betanin.” This level of inaccuracy, up to a 35% error, severely compromises the study’s validity, making it impossible to establish a reliable No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level (NOAEL). A range of 65-85% means the animals in the high-dose group, for example, may have received a dose intended for the mid-dose group. This degree of inaccuracy undermines the dose-response assessment and the reliability of the derived NOAEL (3581 mg/kg/day for males). If the dose is unknown, the NOAEL is meaningless.

RELIANCE ON PUBLISHED STUDIES ON NATURAL BEETROOT JUICE OR NATURAL BETALAINS

The petitioner relies heavily on published studies on beetroot juice or betalains. Yet, these studies are flawed because: 

1. They did not use the specific test article, the fermented genetically engineered product. 
2. The concentration of betanin in the tested material was unknown. Even the FDA admits, in Sections VI, VII, XI, these limitations. Such as: 1. “the concentration of specific betalain like betanin was unknown in the dosing solution.” (Section VI). 2. “this acute study… failed to provide the concentration of betanin…” (Section VII). 3. “these studies had limitations to draw any conclusions on the study endpoints.” (Section VII). 4. “all these clinical studies were conducted with betalains and beetroot preparations and the level of betanin is unknown…” (Section XI). 

The petitioner cannot use studies to support the safety of a specific well-characterized test article, the fermented genetically engineered Beetroot Red, if the concentration of the active component, betanin, in those studies is unknown. The matrix, whole beetroot juice vs. purified fermented product, is different, and the dose is unknown. These studies cannot substitute for robust studies on the actual fermented genetically engineered product in question.

ALLERGENICITY

The actual genetic sequences are redacted, making it impossible to run through known allergen databases to assess allergenicity.

Additional Concerns

1. Concerns Regarding Synthetic Biology and Process Integrity

The safety profile of this additive is inextricably linked to its production host. Using Saccharomyces cerevisiae introduces specific risks that are not present in soil-grown beets.

Residual Host Cell Proteins (HCPs): Even with high-level purification, there is a risk of residual yeast proteins remaining in the final dye. For individuals with yeast allergies or sensitivities, this poses a direct health risk. Even trace amounts of residual yeast proteins can trigger reactions in sensitive individuals.

Potential for Unintended Metabolic Byproducts: The use of multi-gene biosynthetic pathways (including genes like BvDODA1 and BvCYP76AD1) inserted into a yeast host represents a high degree of processing. This is a radical departure from simple extraction. The stability of these engineered pathways over long-term industrial cycles and the potential for unintended metabolic byproducts must be scrutinized more heavily than traditional food colors.

Novel Protein Exposure: The biosynthetic enzymes used to create the dye are not typically consumed by humans in high concentrations or in this isolated form. The presence of biosynthetic enzymes (such as the glucosyltransferases used to stabilize the dye) has not been sufficiently evaluated for potential allergenicity in the human gut or the impact on the microbiome.

Established Concerns About Contamination:  Independent testing data related to another SynBio product, a milk protein, found that the final product was over 85% fungal proteins – more than 90 of them – that were never before consumed by humans. Those results demonstrate that we should be concerned about the possibility of similar contamination for Phytolon’s GMO Beetroot Red dye. Thorough contamination and safety testing must be performed.

2. Misleading Labeling   

While the resulting pigment may be chemically similar to that found in traditional beets, the method of production and the proposed marketing of this ingredient as “natural” raise significant safety, transparency, and allergenicity concerns that have not been sufficiently addressed.

The characterization of this additive as a “natural” color or as “no artificial color” is fundamentally misleading to the consumer. This dye is not “sourced from nature” in the traditional sense; it is a product of Synthetic Biology (SynBio), synthesized in industrial fermentation vats using genetically engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast.

Consumers associate “beetroot red” with a whole-food source. Labeling a vat-grown, bioengineered pigment as “natural” or “beetroot-derived” or “no artificial color” obscures the reality of its synthetic origin and deceives consumers.

Call for Rigorous Safety Testing

There is a dearth of independent, peer-reviewed, long-term feeding studies that confirm the safety of these specific fermented betalains compared to their traditionally extracted counterparts.

Before final approval is granted, the following must be mandated:

1. Long term safety testing to comply with the FDA’s request for a long term rodent feeding study.

2.  Proteomic Analysis: Rigorous testing to prove the absolute absence of residual yeast DNA and allergenic proteins.

3. Clear Labeling Standards: Strict enforcement of labeling that prevents the use of “natural” or “no artificial colors” for any ingredient produced via Synthetic Biology.

4. Allergen Warnings: Mandatory disclosure if the product was manufactured using a yeast-based fermentation process, to protect sensitive populations.

Conclusion

The push for “sustainable” colors should not come at the expense of consumer transparency and safety. The agency must prioritize thorough long term safety testing and the “Right to Know” for consumers who wish to avoid Synthetic Biology. The agency must ensure that the allergen screening for these novel additives is as rigorous as those for pharmaceutical-grade biologics. We urge the agency to require clear labeling that distinguishes between plant-extracted pigments and those produced via Synthetic Biology, prohibiting the labeling of synthetic dye as “natural” or as “no artificial colors”.

The post Is Beetroot Red Food Dye a Bait-and-Switch? appeared first on GMO / Toxin Free USA.

We thought the EPA during the first Trump administration was the worst EPA we could have. How wrong we were.

In 2025, the Revolving Door swung. And swung. And swung. Until all major management positions within the EPA were fully stacked with industry lackeys.

Trump appointed an inexperienced Lee Zeldin to lead the agency. Who is Lee Zeldin? Zeldin represented New York’s First District (eastern Long Island) in Congress after serving for 4 years in the NY State Senate. According to Climate Power, Zeldin has received over $410,000 from the oil and gas industry in his election campaigns, including over $260,000 while running for Congress and more than $150,000 in his failed gubernatorial run in NY against Kathy Hochul. He has taken more than $60,000 from Koch Industries over the course of his political career, according to Open Secrets data. Money talks and it’s no wonder that Zeldin has made it clear that he strongly supports increased fossil fuel extraction and the pollution that comes with it.

Zeldin is just a politician, a loyal Trump supporter and yes-man, the public face of and a useful idiot for Big Chemical, Big Ag, and Dirty Energy. It’s the leadership under Zeldin that has the expertise to do the dirty work of the polluting industries.

These managers think they can avoid the ire of public opinion, continuing to anonymously slither through the Revolving Door over and over again.

It’s time for us to do more than criticize Zeldin. We’re going to show you faces and name names. Can these people even feel shame?

EPA Office of the Administrator

The Office of the Administrator (AO) provides executive and logistical support for the EPA Administrator, currently Lee Zeldin.

David Fotouhi, EPA Deputy Administrator

David Fotouhi was an associate attorney in the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP for nearly 6 years defending polluting companies accused of harming people and the environment. He went through the EPA Revolving Door during the first Trump administration, tasked with rolling back clean water and climate regulations.

He left to become a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP during the Biden administration.

In 2025, he again strolled through the Revolving Door to become Deputy Administrator, the second in command at the EPA. This time he’s tasked with rolling back or overturning regulations on asbestos, PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals’, clean water protections, and anything else that will help polluters.

To read more about Fotouhi, check out this ProPublica article by Sharon Lerner.

EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP)

The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), which includes the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), is responsible for regulation of toxic chemicals and pesticides. OCSPP’s stated mission is “to protect you, your family, and the environment from potential risks from pesticides and toxic chemicals using the law and sound science.”

Douglas Troutman, OCSPP Assistant Administrator

In December 2025, Douglas Troutman became the newest Revolving Door hack planted in the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). As Assistant Administrator, he’s the top dog within the OCSPP.

Previously, Troutman spent nearly 18 years as co-CEO and lobbyist for the American Cleaning Institute (ACI), a lobbying organization representing producers of cleaning products and chemical ingredients.

Troutman will oversee the deregulation of toxic chemicals and pesticides.

Nancy Beck, OCSPP Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator

Nancy Beck worked for over 5 years as a director for the chemical industry lobbying group, American Chemistry Council, before joining the EPA as Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) during Trump’s first term.

The Hill reported: Maria Doa, a former EPA official who worked on chemical issues at the agency for several decades, including during the first Trump administration, said that Beck tried to weaken the science surrounding toxic chemicals. “When I was at EPA dealing with Nancy Beck, I regularly pushed back against her efforts to undermine the science, to change scientific determinations so that chemicals would not be regulated.” She particularly noted that Beck pushed back on efforts to reduce exposure to toxic chemicals. “She would downplay the risk from trichloroethylene, which causes three types of cancer, multiple effects on the body, developmental toxicity,” Doa said. Doa also recounted a meeting in which she said Beck did not appear to care that deaths related to paint remover methylene chloride were likely being undercounted. “[Beck] said, ‘Well, what is that, like 1 percent? What’s the issue?’… which is just shocking, because parents lost children, and children lost a father or mother, so there were a number of deaths,” Doa recalled.

With the return of Trump in 2025, Nancy Beck also returned to the OCSPP, this time with a pay raise as Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, the office’s number two.

Lynn Dekleva, OCSPP Deputy Assistant Administrator

Lynn Dekleva worked for the chemical giant DuPont for over 32 years before being appointed by Trump during his first administration as the Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator within the OCSPP.

She then left and spent 3 years as senior director and lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council. During that time, she led a lobbying campaign attempting to stop the EPA from regulating carcinogenic formaldehyde.

In 2025, she was brought back to the EPA, with a pay raise, as Deputy Assistant Administrator in the OCSPP. In December 2025, the EPA announced a proposal to double the threshold for inhalation exposure to formaldehyde.

The American Chemistry Council has also tasked her with abolishing a program under which the agency assesses the risks of chemicals to human health.

Kyle Kunkler, OCSPP Deputy Assistant Administrator

Kyle Kunkler worked as a senior lobbyist for the American Soybean Association (ASA) for over 5 years before being appointed to the position of Deputy Assistant Administrator in the OCSPP in June 2025. During his time with the ASA, he lobbied Congress on pesticide policies and against pesticide regulations. The ASA has been part of Bayer-Monsanto’s industry coalition lobbying states and the federal government for pesticide-harm immunity.

Shortly after being appointed to be in charge of pesticide policy at the EPA, Kunkler got right to work doing the bidding of the agrichemical industry. The EPA is proposing to re-approve cancer-causing, highly volatile and drift-prone dicamba herbicide, which federal courts have twice restricted, while Bayer-Monsanto is preparing to increase its use by developing GMO dicamba-tolerant sugarbeets. 

EPA Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM)

According to the EPA’s website, “the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) works to protect the human health and environment of all communities by preventing contamination, cleaning up and returning land to productive use, and responding to emergencies.”

Steven Cook, OLEM Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator

Steven Cook is a pollution industry lawyer that has also twice passed through the Revolving Door. His first stint at the EPA as Deputy Assistant Administrator in the OLEM was, surprise, surprise, during the first Trump administration. OLEM is the EPA office that oversees toxic waste cleanups. He left the agency as the Biden administration took over.

When the Biden EPA proposed a new rule that would force polluters to clean up pollution from PFAS “Forever Chemicals,” Cook represented chemical companies suing to block the new rule, attempting to shift cleanup costs estimated in the tens of billions or more away from polluters and onto taxpayers.

In January 2025, Trump gave him a senior role, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator in OLEM. In summer 2025, the new PFAS cleanup rule was reversed.

The Revolving Door Must Close

To be clear, there has always been a Revolving Door and resulting corruption at the EPA, under past Democrat and Republican administrations alike. But what we witnessed in 2025 was a total takeover of the EPA by industry and the firing of scientists who normally serve as a bulwark against corruption by political appointees.

We, the taxpayers, are paying this swamp $200,000+ salaries to destroy our health and the health of our environment. All of these individuals will have even bigger financial prizes waiting for them after the second Trump administration ends and they slither through the Revolving Door back to industry.

The U.S. Congress created and has purview over the EPA. We must demand that this affront to America’s health ends. Congress must fire every single person named in this blog. Then Congress must reform the EPA so that the Revolving Door is forever closed.

The post The Environmental Protection Agency’s Revolving Door: The Foxes Are Now Guarding All the Hen Houses appeared first on GMO / Toxin Free USA.

A recent federal appellate court ruling delivered a clear message: the USDA’s current GMO (Bioengineered/BE) labeling rule falls short of the law’s promise to consumers. The court found that the existing rule is inadequate and ordered the agency to go back and rewrite it—opening a critical window to demand honest, meaningful labeling that people can actually understand and use. This is a rare opportunity to push for true transparency in our food system and ensure the public’s right to know is finally respected.

The current rule has so many loopholes and exemptions that GMO/BE labels are like an endangered species. We spent an hour in a grocery store looking, and despite the fact that at least 70 – 80% of packaged foods on the shelves contain GMO/bioengineered ingredients, we couldn’t find a single on-package GMO/BE label.

The current law, passed in 2016 and signed into law by President Obama, was the fruit of tens of millions of lobbying dollars from Big Food and Big Ag, the companies that stand to lose the most when consumers know what they’re buying.

Background: Early Efforts and Sabotaged Attempts at GMO Labeling

• Efforts to require clear labeling of genetically modified foods in the U.S. date back decades. Oregon Ballot Measure 27 in 2002 attempted to require mandatory labeling of GMO-containing foods in that state — but it was rejected by voters after opponents spent $5.5 million lobbying against it. Monsanto Company (now owned by German Bayer), the agricultural company whose products accounted for 70% of the GMO market, contributed $1.5 million to the effort. Sadly, they were able to convince voters to vote against their own best interests by using fearmongering tactics, scaring consumers with false claims that food prices would rise significantly.
  
• In 2012, California GMO labeling initiative Proposition 37 likewise failed at the ballot box after Monsanto et al used the same tactics. Despite the absurd amount of money spent by corporations lobbying against it, $46 million, the measure failed by only a small margin.
  
• In 2013, both Connecticut and Maine passed GMO labeling laws with trigger clauses, meaning they’d activate once neighboring states enacted similar rules.
  
• In 2014, Vermont became the first state to pass a mandatory law requiring “Produced with Genetic Engineering” labels, with an effective date in 2016. But it was later preempted at the federal level by the DARK Act and never took effect.
  
• On the federal level, Public Law 114-216 was enacted in 2016 when President Obama signed Senate Bill 764 (S.764) — dubbed the “DARK Act” (Deny Americans the Right to Know) — overturning Vermont’s law and preventing future state-level GMO labeling that called for stricter rules. The federal standard, the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, was not finalized until 2018, and didn’t take effect until January 1, 2022.

The 2018 National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard and Why It Failed to Achieve Meaningful Transparency

• In 2016, Congress amended the USDA’s authority — via Public Law 114-216 — and directed the agency to create a national standard requiring disclosure when foods “are or may be bioengineered.”
  
• The USDA’s implementing regulation (finalized in 2018, and commonly referred to as the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, or “BE Rule”) went into effect on January 1, 2022.
  
• But from the start, the BE Rule contained major loopholes that gutted the potential for meaningful disclosure:
  
  • It exempted many “highly refined” or ultraprocessed foods (e.g., refined oils, sugars, starches and other ingredients derived from GMO crops) if the genetic material was rendered “undetectable” in the finished product.
    
  • It required disclosures to use the term “bioengineered” — a technical, less-familiar term — instead of more recognizable language like “GMO,” “genetically modified,” or “genetically engineered,” which critics argued would confuse consumers or obscure the fact that a product contains genetically modified ingredients.
    
  • It allowed companies to satisfy disclosure requirements by simply providing a QR code or a website link — requiring consumers to scan or access the internet to learn whether the product contains bioengineered ingredients. Many saw this as deeply inadequate, since it places the burden on consumers and excludes those without smartphones or reliable internet access.

Because of these exemptions and technical loopholes, consumer advocacy groups argued that the law failed to deliver on its promise: most processed foods derived from GMO crops would not carry any clear, on-package label indicating their origin.

In short — the 2018 federal standard was deeply flawed from a transparency standpoint. It created a national labeling regime, but one so weak and narrow that, for many consumers and many products, it meant little or nothing had changed.

The 2025 Court Ruling: A Turning Point

On October 31, 2025, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down a landmark decision in Natural Grocers v. Rollins (Case No. 22-16770), which significantly undermined key elements of the BE Rule — and opened the door to a true, more comprehensive mandatory GMO labeling scheme.

The court’s decision addressed three central issues:

• Exemption for “highly refined” foods: The Ninth Circuit found that the USDA committed a legal error when it excluded processed foods whose genetic material was “undetectable” from labeling requirements. The court held that “non-detectability” under the regulation cannot be equated with “non-presence.” In other words, even if modified genetic material is so processed that current tests cannot detect it, that does not mean it is not “contained” in the food — so the exemption was unlawful.
  
• Disclosure format (QR-codes / website links): The appellate court affirmed that the previous allowance for QR codes (or website links) alone is invalid because such methods do not guarantee meaningful access to GMO disclosure. The court directed that the lower court craft an appropriate prospective vacatur of those provisions.
  
• Terminology (“bioengineered” vs. “GMO”): The court did not force USDA to adopt the more familiar term “GMO” or “genetically modified.” It accepted that USDA acted within its discretion in requiring the uniform term “bioengineered.”

But by invalidating the “highly refined” exemption and the digital-only disclosure option, the ruling effectively dismantles the two biggest structural loopholes that rendered the 2022 labeling standard largely meaningless in practice. Many products derived from GMO crops — including common processed foods — may now soon require clear, on-package labeling. Advocates have described the ruling as “a crucial culmination of decades of effort” toward transparency.

Why the Ruling Creates a Real Opportunity for Meaningful Mandatory GMO Labeling

• Expands the scope of labeled foods: Foods that previously escaped labeling simply because they were refined or processed — like oils, syrups, sweeteners, starches and other common ingredients — now face the prospect of mandatory disclosure as “bioengineered” (or GMO). That dramatically expands the list of products subject to disclosure.
  
• Eliminates digital-only disclosure: By striking down QR codes (or website links) as sufficient disclosure, the court forced manufacturers to provide labeling in a way that consumers can see directly on the package — rather than requiring additional steps that many shoppers may not take or may not be able to take, and discriminates against consumers who do not have a smart phone or internet access.
  
• National standard can now function as true “right to know”: With loopholes removed, the national law finally has a chance to fulfill what many consumers and advocates sought for decades — a transparent, broadly applicable GMO labeling requirement that does not depend on voluntary disclosures, obscure terminology, or hidden digital disclosures.
  
• Leverage for further reforms and public pressure: Because the ruling remands the standard back to the USDA to rewrite the regulations, there is a meaningful window for public input, advocacy, and regulatory reform — potentially leading to stronger requirements than before.
  

In essence, the court has forced a re-evaluation of the rules — shifting the balance from industry-friendly loopholes toward consumer transparency.

Challenges Remain — What’s Not Yet Guaranteed

• The court did not require use of the term “GMO” over “bioengineered.” The more technical “bioengineered” remains legal under the law, which may still cause confusion for many consumers.
  
• The court stopped short of immediately invalidating the entire BE Rule. Instead, it remanded portions of the regulation and gave the agency the authority to adopt scientifically justified thresholds (for how much modified genetic material constitutes a “bioengineered” food) under a separate statutory provision. While the EU and other countries around the world require a label if as little as 0.9% of the ingredients are derived from genetic engineering, the court left it open for the USDA to set higher, industry friendly thresholds.
  
• There is no fixed deadline for when new regulations must be issued. The agency will need to engage in further rulemaking (including public comment), which could take time — or be delayed by political or administrative factors.

So while the ruling is a breakthrough, realizing “true mandatory labeling” will depend on implementation — and potentially on public pressure, advocacy, and regulatory follow-through.

Conclusion: A Long-Awaited Pivot — But Not the Final Finish Line

For decades, efforts to mandate GMO labeling in the United States faltered — through failed ballot initiatives, legislation like the DARK Act, and regulatory standards that created more loopholes than transparency. The 2018 BE Rule represented the first national labeling standard — but one deeply compromised in scope and effectiveness.

The 2025 decision by the Ninth Circuit in Natural Grocers v. Rollins marks a significant turning point. By invalidating the exemption for refined foods and rejecting digital-only disclosure, the court has opened the door to REAL, meaningful disclosure — the kind we, and the majority of consumers, have demanded for well over a decade.

But this is not the end. Now begins the crucial next phase: regulatory rewriting, public input, and likely political and industry pressure. For a true labeling regime to emerge — one that clearly informs shoppers about GMO ingredients across the food products on our grocery store shelves — vigilance and continued advocacy will be essential.

Given the powerful influence of corporate lobbying, there will be extreme pressure from Big Food and Big Ag for high tolerance thresholds resulting in weak and meaningless standards, and to once again kick the can down the road for years in the hope that no one will notice and public engagement will decline.

This ruling doesn’t guarantee the end of labeling fights, but the beginning of yet another battle for food transparency. We need to know what’s in our food so we have the freedom to choose how our food was produced and, if need be, we can track back and figure out if it’s making us sick. It’s a basic human right to know.  We hope you’re up for the fight!

The post A GMO Labeling Opportunity We Can’t Afford to Miss… appeared first on GMO / Toxin Free USA.

IMPORTANT NOTE TO OUR SUPPORTERS: Something deeply troubling happened in September. The government blocked access to its public comment dockets by the third-party platform our nonprofit has long used to help you submit regulatory comments. For years, this tool allowed us to help thousands of people quickly and easily participate in the democratic process and ensure their voices were heard on critical issues. Now, that door has been slammed shut. The software vendor that provides our click-and-send tool is currently searching for a workaround. Until then, to submit your comment on a regulatory comment docket, you must copy and paste our suggested text and manually submit it using the link we’ve provided. As always, you can send the suggested text as-is, but we encourage you to edit to make it your own. Your comment is more important than ever. We can’t allow the government to silence our voices.

8 Recommendations to the National Organic Standards Board to Improve Organic Farming and Food – Fall 2025 Meeting

The public comment period closes at 11:59 PM Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 8, 2025. The pre-written comment text is below and in blue. Let the NOSB know why organic integrity is important for you.

TAKE ACTION TODAY AND TELL THE NOSB TO ADDRESS THESE PRESSING ISSUES. Copy the suggested comment below and then paste and edit on the public comment docket CLICK HERE (or use this link https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/AMS-NOP-25-0034-0001 )

SUGGESTED PRE-WRITTEN COMMENT TEXT

BACKGROUND

What is the National Organic Standards Board?

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is a Federal Advisory Board made up of 15 dedicated public volunteers from across the organic community. Established by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the NOSB considers and makes recommendations on a wide range of issues involving the production, handling, and processing of organic products. The NOSB also has special responsibilities related to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.

The NOSB generally meets twice per year at a public meeting to discuss the items on its work agenda, vote on proposals, and make recommendations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary. The public is invited to participate.

The NOSB fall meeting will be held November 4–6, 2025. The deadline to submit written comments is 11:59PM ET, October 8, 2025.

What are the most pressing issues?

For two years, we have focused on PFAS Forever Chemicals and toxic plastic contamination in organics as central issues, but the NOSB has failed to address either of them in a meaningful way. As organic stakeholders, we must make sure both of these very important issues are front row center and keep the pressure on.

Recommendations to the USDA and NOSB – Fall 2025

1. Place the entire class of PFAS chemicals on the National List of Prohibited Substances in organic production, including Teflon and PTFE-coated equipment, lubricants, and cleaners in organic food prep and processing.
2. Strengthen the rules for organic compost production to prohibit the use of inputs from conventional agriculture such as manure and compost inputs which are contaminated with toxic chemicals, synthetic pesticides and GMOs, to keep synthetics out of organic compost.
3. Research and develop non-toxic alternatives to plastic mulch and tarps for growing with the goal of phasing out the use of plastic mulch.
4. Prohibit the use of fluorinated (PFAS-coated) HDPE #2 plastic containers and packaging.
5. Prohibit the use of recycled plastic containers and packaging. Research and develop non-toxic alternatives to petrochemical-based plastic containers and packaging with the goal of phasing out the use of plastic containers and packaging.
6. Require a separate certification label for hydroponics.
7. Prohibit CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, also known as factory farms) from being certified organic.
8. Prohibit synthetic hormones in organic milk production.

Implementing these recommendations would protect the health of organic consumers and the wider environment, and bring the organic label closer to meeting the expectations of organic consumers.

Support for these recommendations is as follows:

1. Place the entire class of PFAS chemicals on the National List of Prohibited Substances in organic production, including Teflon and PTFE-coated equipment, lubricants, and cleaners in organic food prep and processing.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFAS) are a class of over 15,000 toxic substances that don’t break down naturally, earning the nickname “Forever Chemicals.” These chemicals are increasingly causing a public health crisis due to cumulative historical and continuing use. Studies have linked PFAS to cancer, autoimmune disease, thyroid disease, liver damage, high blood pressure, obesity, hormone disruption, decreased immunity, decreased fertility, birth defects, and harmful developmental effects in infants.

PFAS contamination of organic food and products can occur during the production of crops and livestock, the storage of raw materials (leaching from fluorinated containers, addressed later), during manufacturing (from machinery and/or the products used to clean and lubricate it), and/or from the final consumer packaging (leaching from plastic and paper products coated with PFAS).

In a 2023 pilot study, researchers found higher levels of PFAS in organic kale than conventional kale. This is a black mark on organics and undermines the integrity of the USDA Organic label.

Research should be conducted to investigate all the modes by which PFAS can contaminate or leach into organic foods and products. But regardless of the sources of contamination, the entire class of PFAS chemicals should be prohibited in all potential areas of exposure under the National Organic Program (NOP). PFAS chemicals, as  a class, should be placed on the National List of Prohibited Substances.

2. Strengthen the rules for organic compost production to prohibit the use of inputs from conventional agriculture such as manure and compost inputs which are contaminated with toxic chemicals, synthetic pesticides and GMOs, to keep synthetics out of organic compost.

(Per our friends at Beyond Pesticides) Support the proposal of the Crops Subcommittee (CS) to keep synthetic compostable materials out of organic compost. Compost from plant and animal materials is of fundamental importance to organic practices. Composting is one way that organic growers meet the requirement in law to “foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.” The integrity of organic production must be maintained by preserving the integrity of compost. Contaminants in broadly defined “compost feedstocks” cannot be predicted, but history suggests that more persistent toxic pollutants will be found. The NOSB must maintain control over synthetic materials allowed in organic production, as required by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). Research continues to raise alarms about the hazards associated with the use of plastic, including the microplastic particles that are distributed in alarming amounts throughout the environment and taken up by organisms, including humans. Only synthetic materials that are specifically added to the National List through the prescribed process should be allowed in compost destined to be an input into organic production. The NOSB should reopen the workplan item on contaminated inputs that is currently on hold.

(Per GMO/Toxin Free USA) Additionally, there are concerns that certain inputs used for certified organic compost do not come from certified organic sources and pose contamination risks. For example, animal manure can come from conventionally raised animals that eat GMOs laced with synthetic pesticides and are potentially contaminated by PFAS, risking contamination in the final organic compost product. There should be required testing by organic compost producers to assure that substances on the National List of Prohibited Substances, and dangerous substances not on the List, such as PFAS chemicals, are not present in the marketed product.

3. Research and develop non-toxic alternatives to plastic mulch and tarps for growing with the goal of phasing out the use of these plastic products.

Plastic mulch and tarps are often used by growers for multiple reasons: To cover crop row walkways and crop beds, preventing the spread of weeds, to help control soil temperature, for moisture retention, and to cover fallow land, preventing soil erosion, just to name a few. This has provided a convenience to growers.

But research indicates that it’s time to stop using these products. Plastic mulches and tarps release toxic chemicals, potentially including PFAS, phthalates and other endocrine disruptors. These products also break down into microplastics and nanoplastics (particles smaller than one micrometer in size) which are taken up by food crops through the roots. These plastic products are not recyclable, further polluting the planet.

According to the FAO, “Soils are one of the main receptors of agricultural plastics and are known to contain larger quantities of microplastics than oceans.” The FAO also stated, “In 2019, agricultural value chains used 12.5 million tonnes of plastic products in plant and animal production and 37.3 million tonnes in food packaging. The crop production and livestock sectors are the largest users, accounting for 10 million tonnes per year collectively, followed by fisheries and aquaculture with 2.1 million tonnes, and forestry with 0.2 million tonnes.”

A December 2020 review study published in the journal Chemosphere shows that crops can uptake PFAS chemicals from the soil, with root uptake being the predominant pathway for the accumulation of PFAS in agricultural crops. The contaminated crops become a direct and potentially significant route of exposure to humans and animals eating the crops.

Like all plastic products, microplastic pollution is a problem with plastic mulches and tarps. A May 2020 study published in the journal Environmental Pollution stated that “The abundances of microplastic particles increased over time in the locations where plastic mulching was continuously employed… Fourier transform infrared analyses revealed that the composition of the microplastics matched that of the mulching films, suggesting the microplastic particles originated from the mulching films. These findings confirm that plastic mulching is an important source of macroplastic and microplastic contamination in terrestrial environments.”

Possibly most alarming is that plants can uptake plastic particles through their roots, according to a July 2020 study published in the journal Nature Sustainability, exposing humans and animals to the microplastics and the toxic chemicals they release. An August 2020 study published in the journal Environmental Research showed that microplastics are, in fact, in the vegetables and fruit we all eat. The study found microplastics in the foods tested (carrots, lettuce, broccoli, potatoes, apples and pears), with the highest contamination levels found in carrots and shockingly, apples. And a new August 2025 study published in the journal Environmental Research confirms that nanoplastics can move from roots into edible vegetable tissues.

Research and development of non-toxic alternatives is urgently needed to phase out the use of plastic mulches and tarps in certified organic operations.

4. Prohibit the use of fluorinated (PFAS-coated) HDPE #2 plastic containers and packaging.

A March 2023 study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters found that fluorinated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) #2 plastic containers contain PFAS, including the highly toxic perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) as detected in ketchup, mustard and mayonnaise tested.

The study stated: “In all experiments, short-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) were detected in the highest frequencies and concentrations with analyte concentration decreasing as chain length increased. An estimate for PFAS released into food ranged from 0.77 to 2.68 ng/kg body weight per week, showing ingestion of food stored in these containers could be a significant source of exposure.”

“Not only did we measure significant concentrations of PFAS in these containers, we can estimate the PFAS that were leaching off creating a direct path of exposure,” said Graham Peaslee, professor of physics in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Notre Dame and an author of the study. “We measured concentrations of PFOA that significantly exceeded the limit set by the EPA’s 2022 Health Advisory Limits,” said Peaslee. “Now, consider that not only do we know that the chemicals are migrating into the substances stored in them, but that the containers themselves work their way back into the environment through landfills. PFAS doesn’t biodegrade. It doesn’t go away. Once these chemicals are used, they get into the groundwater, they get into our biological systems, and they cause significant health problems.”

Fluorinated plastic containers, whether used for storage and manufacturing or used for consumer packaging, must be prohibited to protect the health of organic consumers and the environment.

5. Prohibit the use of recycled plastic containers and packaging. Research and develop non-toxic alternatives to petrochemical-based plastic containers and packaging with the goal of phasing out the use of these products.

Research shows that plastic breaks down into microplastics and nanoplastics, contaminating food and drinks. When plastics are exposed to liquids, they can shed even more.

An April 2022 study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology found that all plastics tested released nanoplastics. The authors chose to focus the study on two types of plastic: “food-grade” nylon bags and coffee cups lined with low-density polyethylene. They found that the materials released more nanoplastics as the water temperature rose, up to trillions of fragments.

Virgin plastics are toxic. Recycled plastic is even more toxic.

A May 2022 study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials found that widely-used PET recycled plastic bottles pass more toxic chemicals into their contents than virgin plastic bottles. They found that of the 150 toxic chemicals that leached into drinks from recycled plastic bottles, 18 were at levels exceeding regulations.

Concerning human and animal health…

An April 2021 study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials found microplastics cause damage to human cells at the levels known to be consumed by people via contaminated food.

An April 2022 pilot study detected microplastics in the meat, milk and blood of farm animals.

A May 2022 study published in the journal Environment International found microplastics in human blood.

A June 2022 study published in the journal Polymers found microplastics in human breast milk.

A July 2022 study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment found microplastics in human lungs.

A July 2023 study published in the journal International Journal of Molecular Sciences found that microplastics infiltrated all systems of the body. The researchers found that plastic particles bioaccumulate in every organ. “The brain blood barrier is supposed to be very difficult to permeate. It is a protective mechanism against viruses and bacteria, yet these particles were able to get in there. It was actually deep in the brain tissue,” said Professor Jaime Ross, one of the study’s authors. The researchers found that the infiltration of microplastics was as widespread in the body as it is in the environment. They found that microplastic exposure induces both behavioral changes and alterations in immune markers in liver and brain tissues. The study mice began to move and behave peculiarly, exhibiting behaviors akin to dementia in humans. The results were even more profound in older animals. “To us, this was striking. These were not high doses of microplastics, but in only a short period of time, we saw these changes,” Ross said.

A February 2024 study published in the journal Toxicological Sciences found microplastics in all the placenta samples tested. Prof. Matthew Campen at the University of New Mexico who led the research, said: “If we are seeing effects on placentas, then all mammalian life on this planet could be impacted. That’s not good.”

And a May 2024 preprint study confirmed that microplastics bioaccumulated in human livers, kidneys and brains. Shockingly, the brain samples contained on average about 10 to 20 times more than the other organs. The researchers looked at 12 brain samples from people who had died with dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease. These brains contained up to 10 times more plastic by weight than healthy samples. The study also found the quantity of microplastics in brain samples from 2024 was about 50% higher from the total in samples that date to 2016, suggesting the concentration of microplastics found in human brains is rising at a similar rate to that found in the environment.

The groundbreaking report, Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health, published in March 2023 in the journal Annals of Global Health, makes it clear that a worldwide moratorium on single-use, fossil fuel-based plastics (produced from coal, oil and fracked gas) is necessary. The report concludes that plastic causes environmental damage and premature death at every stage of its life cycle, from production to use and disposal.

“These findings put us on an unequivocal path to demand the banning or severely restricting of unnecessary, avoidable, and problematic plastic items, many of which contain hazardous chemicals with links to horrific harm to people and the planet,” says report co-author, Dr. Sarah Dunlop.

Dr. Phillip Landrigan, epidemiologist and pediatrician, also a co-author, says: “Plastics are full of thousands upon thousands of really toxic chemicals. Some of them can cause cancer. Some of them can cause birth defects in babies. Some of them can cause brain damage. Some can disrupt the functioning of the endocrine system of the human body. And because plastic waste can contain all of these nasty materials, you can’t just recycle it and put it into food packaging.”

A September 2023 study, published in the journal JAMA Psychiatry, found pregnant women may experience a greater risk of postpartum depression when exposed to a specific class of chemicals known as phthalates — ubiquitous chemicals found in numerous personal care and plastic consumer products, including food packaging.

Microplastics and toxic chemicals go hand in hand. The two cannot be separated. And both are dangerous to human health.

Ongoing research by Adrift Lab has linked ingestion of plastics by seabirds to sublethal health effects. Their January 2023 study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials found multi-organ damage in seabirds from ingesting microplastic fragments. A follow-up February 2023 study concluded that ingested plastic was causing scarring of the birds’ proventriculus, part of the digestive system, in a phenomenon they call “plasticosis.”

It is reasonable to expect that microplastics could be causing organ damage and scarring in humans. “In my view, plasticosis could be a sign that a new age of disease is upon us because of human overuse of plastics and other long-lasting contaminants, and their leakage into the environment,” writes Dr. Matt Savoca, a conservation biologist.

There is no such thing as “food grade” plastic or “safe” plastic made from petrochemicals.

In light of the growing body of scientific evidence about plastics, the shedding of microplastics, and the toxic chemicals they leach under real-world use, we believe the organic sector should urgently research and identify alternatives.

Recycled plastics have been found to be many times more toxic than virgin plastics and should be banned immediately. Virgin petrochemical-based plastics for the storage and packaging of food and consumer products such as cosmetics should be phased out.

6. Require a separate certification label for hydroponics.

Hydroponic operations do not follow the National Organic Program requirement of stewarding the soil because hydroponic crops are not grown in soil. Hydroponic operations use inputs such as sterile growing mediums in plastic containers that likely leach toxic chemicals, and “proprietary” nutrient solutions.

To make matters worse, some operations have been found to be using herbicides such as glyphosate-based Roundup to manage weeds on facility property. Glyphosate is banned in organics, no matter how it is used. Why is the USDA turning a blind eye to the egregious and unacceptable practices used by hydroponic facilities?

Hydroponically-produced fruits and vegetables shouldn’t be allowed to be certified organic at all. In fact, Canada and Europe prohibit hydroponic farms and products from being certified as organic.

If the USDA continues to allow this internationally rogue practice to continue, then organic consumers have the right to know how their food is being produced.

Hydroponic foods must be labeled in a way that clearly identifies the foods as being produced using hydroponic methods and not grown in soil. Packaging and labels should contain clearly visible text words such as “hydroponic product,” “hydroponically produced,” or similar wording.

7. Prohibit CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, also known as factory farms) from being certified organic.

Shoppers of organic meats, eggs and dairy would not expect that those foods would come from factory farms.

Animals raised in CAFOs or in extreme confinement situations are subjected to unnatural and cruel living conditions and practices. In most cases, animals such as cows, pigs and chickens are packed so tightly that they barely have room to move. In dairy CAFOs, cows are not given enough space to lie down or are only allowed to roam within grassless lots. Chickens raised in CAFOs most often never see the light of day. These animals experience unnecessary pain and suffering from living in their own excrement, in horrid and filthy conditions.

CAFOs are also linked to the ill health of nearby communities and “are directly associated with the social and economic decline of rural communities,” according to the American Public Health Association. Additionally, CAFOs are responsible for massive air, water and environmental pollution that extends well beyond the areas where the CAFOs are sited. CAFOs are not sustainable.

Operations that fall under the USDA’s definition of a CAFO – an intensive animal feeding operation in which over 1,000 animal units are confined for over 45 days a year – must be prohibited in organic certification.

8. Prohibit synthetic hormones in organic milk production.

(Per Beyond Pesticides) Oxytocin is available as a synthetic hormone and currently allowed in organic dairy production. A vague annotation has resulted in some producers using it inappropriately for milk letdown. Oxytocin is a hormone and, even if rarely used, it leaves organic dairy farmers open to valid criticism that they can still use hormones. For this reason, the two largest organic milk buyers in the U.S. did not support it remaining on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. Alternative treatments are available. The NOSB should allow oxytocin to sunset or be removed from the National List. If it remains on the National List, the NOSB should adopt the recommended annotation, “use in post parturition therapeutic applications within 3 days after birth. It may not be administered to increase an animal’s milk production or for milk letdown.”

The public comment period closes at 11:59 PM Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 8, 2025. The pre-written comment text is below and in blue. Let the NOSB know why organic integrity is important for you.

TAKE ACTION TODAY AND TELL THE NOSB TO ADDRESS THESE PRESSING ISSUES. Copy the suggested comment below and then paste and edit on the public comment docket CLICK HERE (or use this link https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/AMS-NOP-25-0034-0001 )

SUGGESTED PRE-WRITTEN COMMENT TEXT

The post Speak Up for Organic Standards That Truly Align With Consumer Values and Expectations appeared first on GMO / Toxin Free USA.

SIGN THE PETITIONS TO BOTH THE EPA & THE WHITE HOUSE TODAY. Public comments due by August 22, 2025. The suggested comment texts are editable and we encourage you to make them your own. Or send them as-is.

EPA Petition: https://toxinfreeusa.org/take-action/dicamba-2025-epa

WHITE HOUSE Petition: https://toxinfreeusa.org/take-action/dicamba-2025-white-house

EPA INVITES MASS DESTRUCTION WITH RE-APPROVAL OF DICAMBA

“Over-the-top dicamba is very effective for controlling herbicide-resistant weeds in dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybeans. Under the Trump Administration, EPA will ensure that farmers have the tools they need to protect crops and provide a healthy and affordable food supply for our country,” an EPA spokesperson told Newsweek.

On what planet do the EPA political appointees live? Twice banned by the courts, we know there is no way to use this toxic, carcinogenic herbicide without causing immeasurable collateral damage and harm.

Ultraprocessed foods made with GMO soy are already unhealthy. Drenching the GMO soy with toxic dicamba takes those risks to a whole new level. And no, these GMO foods are not affordable, despite being taxpayer-subsidized. The only thing the EPA is ensuring is another giveaway to pesticide giants—while turning a blind eye to the sweeping death and destruction they cause.

Dicamba is known to be so toxic and dangerous that it was banned by the courts in 2020 and and again in 2024. If Bayer-Monsanto, ChemChina-Syngeta, and BASF succeed in getting EPA to overturn the courts and rubber-stamp dicamba herbicide for the third time, it will be disastrous for agriculture, the environment, and the health of humans and wildlife.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Dicamba is a highly toxic, volatile, and drift-prone herbicide known to be able to spread for miles beyond its area of application, killing or damaging all vegetation in its path. The herbicide is so volatile it has the potential to re-aerosolize and drift days after its application in certain weather conditions, making it very difficult, if not impossible, to track back to the source. Because it’s so hard to track, polluters are rarely held accountable.

GMO farmers’ reliance and overuse of glyphosate on GMO glyphosate-tolerant crops since the mid-1990s has caused weeds to evolve resistance to the herbicide. These “superweeds” can’t be killed with glyphosate alone. So Monsanto genetically engineered new crops able to tolerate over-the-top spraying with both glyphosate and dicamba.

The USDA deregulated Monsanto’s glyphosate and dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton seeds in 2015.

Failing to listen to massive public concern and outcry prior to the first approval in 2016, the EPA went on to approve certain dicamba formulations for over-the-top spraying on Monsanto’s GMO soy and cotton. Despite the sounding of alarm bells by farmers and environmental groups like GMO/Toxin Free USA, EPA gave these dicamba formulations the rubber stamp.

Following EPA’s approvals, year after year dicamba drift was responsible for damaging or destroying millions of acres of non-GMO soy, cotton and other food crops like sugar beets, rice, sweet potatoes, peanuts, peaches, tomatoes, grapes and more, harming the livelihoods of non-GMO and organic farmers, and even harming GMO farmers who didn’t want to buy the new, expensive seeds. Dicamba drift has also caused widespread damage to native plants and trees, wildlife refuges, and home gardens.

Dicamba drift damaged an estimated 5 million acres of crops, trees and backyard gardens between 2016 and 2017. Despite the massive reports of drift damage, in 2018 the Trump EPA not only re-approved its use, but expanded the geographical areas where it could be used.

USDA data shows that dicamba drift damaged 15 million acres of soybeans in 2018 alone.

And to add insult to injury, the USDA does zero testing of food crops for dicamba contamination. So we don’t know how much of this carcinogenic chemical we are consuming in our food.

In 2020, a National Institutes of Health study, published in the journal International Journal of Epidemiology, found that the use of dicamba can increase the risk of developing numerous cancers, including liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancers, acute and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and mantle cell lymphoma which may manifest up to 20 years after exposure. With dicamba’s ability to drift for miles, people in many areas of the country are now routinely forced to breathe in this dangerous chemical.

A 2024 study, published in the journal Frontiers in Cancer Control and Society, found the amount of pesticides used on farms was strongly associated with the incidence of many cancers for farmers and their families, and also for entire communities. The study showed that “agricultural pesticides can increase your risk for some cancers just as much as smoking” and living in places with high pesticide use increased the risk of colon and pancreatic cancers by more than 80%.

A first-of-its-kind 2025 study, published in the journal GeoHealth, finds exposure to multiple pesticides significantly increases the risk of childhood cancers compared with exposures to just one pesticide, raising new fears that children are more at risk to the substances’ harmful effects than previously thought. If reapproved, dicamba will be added to the toxic cocktail of pesticides already being used on GMO farms.

In South Dakota, Little Shire Farm, an organic farm run by John and Lisa Zuhlke, was devastated multiple times over multiple years by dicamba drift. “We got completely wiped out. We had to stop production. All of our CSA shares, community-supported agriculture shares-gone; farmers markets–gone.”

Richard Coy was forced to shut down Coy’s Honey Farm in Arkansas, the largest family-operated beekeeping operation in the state, and move it to Mississippi. Dicamba drift damaged the vegetation his bees depended on to live, and also resulted in “undesirable product.” “It’s very emotional, but you can’t let emotions get in the way of business decisions, and the best business decision is to not go broke,” said Coy.

Bader Farms, the largest peach orchard in Missouri, reported 1,000 acres of peaches damaged by dicamba drift over multiple years. Bill Bader’s peach farm was put out of business.

After growing non-GMO soybeans for 15 years, farmer Adam Chappell was forced to switch to GMO dicamba-tolerant soybeans because GMO farmers surrounding him were using dicamba-tolerant soybeans and spraying dicamba. This was, in fact, part of Monsanto’s strategy and marketing plan. In 2020, the Midwest Center conducted an extensive investigation and found that Monsanto released its dicamba-tolerant soybeans knowing the herbicide would cause widespread damage to soybean and cotton crops that weren’t resistant to dicamba. Monsanto used “protection from your neighbors” as a way to sell their seeds. This is nothing short of extortion.

Drift issues even led to a murder in Arkansas in 2018. Farmer Mike Wallace was shot dead after he blamed his crop loss on a neighboring farm. When Wallace confronted the neighboring farm’s farmhand, Curtis Jones, for illegally spraying dicamba, Jones murdered him.

These are only a few of the many thousands of cases of farms and lives devastated by dicamba drift.

In July 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated EPA’s registration of dicamba. But the Trump administration ignored the court order and re-registered dicamba for use through 2025.

In 2021, the EPA introduced minimal restrictions on dicamba use to address the drift issues. But by the Agency’s own admission, this did nothing to reduce dicamba drift damage. EPA’s own data shows dicamba has harmed thousands of farmers to date. The EPA’s December 2021 report states that these numbers are likely an undercount by 25 times.

Through the 2022 and 2023 growing seasons, it was the same song, different verse. With EPA’s inaction, more damage and health harms were documented across America.

“I would like everyone to contact the EPA… If we can get enough people to rise up and say ‘enough is enough, we don’t want to poison our food’, maybe we can get something changed,” said beekeeper Richard Coy.

On February 6, 2024, the U.S. District Court of Arizona overturned the 2020 dicamba registrations that allowed over-the-top applications of three dicamba products, Bayer-Monsanto’s XtendiMax, BASF’s Engenia and ChemChina-Syngenta’s Tavium. The second court order in four years!

Now in 2025, the Trump EPA wants to re-approve this dangerous pesticide again. This is truly madness. There is no other word for it.The EPA and White House must stop colluding with the pesticide industry and start defending public health and the environment.

Demand that the EPA do its job and reverse course. Tell the EPA and the White House to ban dicamba once and for all.

EPA Petition: https://toxinfreeusa.org/take-action/dicamba-2025-epa

WHITE HOUSE Petition: https://toxinfreeusa.org/take-action/dicamba-2025-white-house

The post Tell the EPA and the White House Not to Re-Approve Carcinogenic, Drift-Prone Dicamba Herbicide appeared first on GMO / Toxin Free USA.

TAKE ACTION TODAY AND TELL THE NOSB TO ADDRESS THESE PRESSING ISSUES. CLICK HERE.

What is the National Organic Standards Board?

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is a Federal Advisory Board made up of 15 dedicated public volunteers from across the organic community. Established by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the NOSB considers and makes recommendations on a wide range of issues involving the production, handling, and processing of organic products. The NOSB also has special responsibilities related to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.

The NOSB generally meets twice per year at a public meeting to discuss the items on its work agenda, vote on proposals, and make recommendations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary. The public is invited to participate.

A virtual meeting will be held April 29 – May 1, 2025, from 12:00PM to approximately 5:00PM Eastern Time (ET) each day. The deadline to submit written comments is 11:59PM ET, April 28, 2025.

GMO/Toxin Free USA’s Recommendations to the USDA and National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) April 2025

1. Place the entire class of PFAS chemicals on the National List of Prohibited Substances in Organic production, including Teflon and PTFE-coated equipment, lubricants, and cleaners in organic food prep and processing.
2. For Organic compost, strengthen the rules to prevent toxic chemicals, synthetic pesticides and GMO contamination.
3. Phase out the use of plastic mulch and tarps for growing.
4. Phase out the use of fluorinated (PFAS-coated) HDPE plastic containers and packaging.
5. Phase out the use of all petrochemical-based plastic containers and packaging for retail.
6. Require a separate certification label for hydroponics.
7. Prohibit polluting CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, also known as factory farms) from being certified Organic.

Implementing these recommendations would protect the health of Organic consumers and the wider environment, and bring the organic label closer to meeting the expectations of Organic consumers.

1. Place the entire class of PFAS chemicals on the National List of Prohibited Substances in Organic production, including Teflon and PTFE-coated equipment, lubricants, and cleaners in Organic food prep and processing.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFAS), a class of over 15,000 toxic substances that don’t break down, are increasingly becoming a public health crisis due to historical and current uses. Studies have linked PFAS to cancer, autoimmune disease, thyroid disease, liver damage, high blood pressure, obesity, hormone disruption, decreased immunity, decreased fertility, birth defects, and harmful developmental effects in infants.

PFAS contamination of Organic food and products can occur during the production of crops and animals, the storage of raw materials (leaching from fluorinated containers, addressed later), during manufacturing (from machinery and/or the products used to clean and lubricate), and/or from the final consumer packaging (leaching from plastic and paper products coated with PFAS).

In a 2023 pilot study, researchers found higher levels of PFAS in Organic kale than conventional kale. This is not only embarrassing, but undermines the integrity of the USDA Organic label.

A thorough investigation into all the modes by which PFAS can contaminate or leach into Organic foods and products must be performed. But regardless of the reasons for contamination, the entire class of PFAS chemicals should be prohibited in all potential areas of exposure under the National Organic Program (NOP) and placed on the National List of Prohibited Substances.

2. For Organic compost, strengthen the rules to prevent toxic chemicals, synthetic pesticides and GMO contamination.

(As per Beyond Pesticides) Compost made in Organic production should use plant and animal waste, and not synthetic materials that could introduce hazardous contaminants like PFAS and microplastics. The current regulations require compost to be made from manure and plant wastes, allowing only synthetics on the National List — that is, those that have specifically been approved by the NOSB and USDA through a public comment process. The only synthetic inputs into compost that are currently allowed are newspaper and other paper. A petition seeks to allow “compost feedstocks” that might include, for example, “compostable” food containers.

Both Organic and non-organic farms have been taken out of production because of PFAS contamination, and microplastics can have a synergistic effect with PFAS. Even worse are potential contaminants we don’t know. Current PFAS contamination came from past use of biosolids now known to be a source of “forever chemicals.” Biosolids — fortunately never allowed in Organic production—should be a lesson to remember. The NOSB must protect Organic production by denying the petition to allow synthetic “compostable materials.”

(As per GMO/Toxin Free USA) Additionally, there are concerns that certain inputs used for certified Organic compost are not Organic and pose contamination risks. For example, animal manure can come from conventionally raised animals that eat pesticide-laced GMOs, risking contamination in the final Organic compost product. There should be required testing by Organic compost producers to assure that substances on the National List of Prohibited Substances, and dangerous substances not on the List, such as PFAS chemicals, are not present in the marketed product.

3. Phase out the use of plastic mulch and tarps for growing.

Plastic mulch and tarps are often used by growers for multiple reasons: To cover crop row walkways and crop beds, preventing the spread of weeds, to help control soil temperature and moisture, and to cover fallow land, preventing soil erosion, just to name a few. This has provided a convenience to growers.

But the research indicates that it’s time to move away from these products, as plastic mulches and tarps release toxic chemicals, potentially including PFAS chemicals, phthalates and other endocrine disruptors, and microplastics into the soil that are potentially take up by the plants grown there. Most of these plastic products are considered single-use and are not recyclable, further polluting the planet.

According to the FAO, “Soils are one of the main receptors of agricultural plastics and are known to contain larger quantities of microplastics than oceans.” The FAO also stated, “In 2019, agricultural value chains used 12.5 million tonnes of plastic products in plant and animal production and 37.3 million tonnes in food packaging. The crop production and livestock sectors are the largest users, accounting for 10 million tonnes per year collectively, followed by fisheries and aquaculture with 2.1 million tonnes, and forestry with 0.2 million tonnes.”

A December 2020 review study published in the journal Chemosphere shows that crops can uptake PFAS chemicals from the soil, with root uptake being the predominant pathway for the accumulation of PFAS in agricultural crops. The contaminated crops become a direct and potentially significant route of exposure to humans and animals eating the crops.

Like all plastic products, microplastic pollution is a problem with plastic mulches and tarps. A May 2020 study published in the journal Environmental Pollution stated that “The abundances of microplastic particles increased over time in the locations where plastic mulching was continuously employed… Fourier transform infrared analyses revealed that the composition of the microplastics matched that of the mulching films, suggesting the microplastic particles originated from the mulching films. These findings confirm that plastic mulching is an important source of macroplastic and microplastic contamination in terrestrial environments.”

And possibly most alarming is that, in addition to PFAS, plants can also uptake microplastics through their roots, according to a July 2020 study published in the journal Nature Sustainability, exposing humans and animals to the microplastics and the toxic chemicals they release. An August 2020 study published in the journal Environmental Research showed that microplastics are, in fact, in the vegetables and fruit we all eat. The study found microplastics in the foods tested (carrots, lettuce, broccoli, potatoes, apples and pears), with the highest contamination levels found in carrots and shockingly, apples.

We recommend that plastic mulches and tarps be prohibited in certified Organic operations.

4. Phase out the use of fluorinated (PFAS-coated) HDPE plastic containers and packaging.

A March 2023 study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters found that fluorinated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic containers contain PFAS, including the highly toxic perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) as detected in ketchup, mustard and mayonnaise tested.

The study stated: “In all experiments, short-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) were detected in the highest frequencies and concentrations with analyte concentration decreasing as chain length increased. An estimate for PFAS released into food ranged from 0.77 to 2.68 ng/kg body weight per week, showing ingestion of food stored in these containers could be a significant source of exposure.”

“Not only did we measure significant concentrations of PFAS in these containers, we can estimate the PFAS that were leaching off creating a direct path of exposure,” said Graham Peaslee, professor of physics in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Notre Dame and an author of the study. “We measured concentrations of PFOA that significantly exceeded the limit set by the EPA’s 2022 Health Advisory Limits,” said Peaslee. “Now, consider that not only do we know that the chemicals are migrating into the substances stored in them, but that the containers themselves work their way back into the environment through landfills. PFAS doesn’t biodegrade. It doesn’t go away. Once these chemicals are used, they get into the groundwater, they get into our biological systems, and they cause significant health problems.”

Fluorinated plastic containers, whether used for storage and manufacturing or used for consumer packaging, must be prohibited to protect the health of Organic consumers and the environment.

5. Phase out the use of all petrochemical-based plastic containers and packaging for retail.

Research shows that plastic breaks down into microplastics and nanoplastics, contaminating food and drinks. When plastics are exposed to liquids, they can shed even more.

An April 2022 study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology found that all plastics tested released nanoplastics. The authors chose to focus the study on two types of plastic: “food-grade” nylon bags and coffee cups lined with low-density polyethylene. They found that the materials released more nanoplastics as the water temperature rose, up to trillions of fragments.

Virgin plastics are bad. Recycled plastic is even worse.

A May 2022 study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials found that widely-used PET recycled plastic bottles pass more toxic chemicals into their contents than virgin plastic bottles. They found that of the 150 toxic chemicals that leached into drinks from recycled plastic bottles, 18 were at levels exceeding regulations.

Concerning human and animal health…

An April 2021 study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials found microplastics cause damage to human cells at the levels known to be consumed by people via contaminated food.

An April 2022 pilot study detected microplastics in the meat, milk and blood of farm animals.

A May 2022 study published in the journal Environment International found microplastics in human blood.

A June 2022 study published in the journal Polymers found microplastics in human breast milk.

A July 2022 study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment found microplastics in human lungs.

A March 2023 study published in the journal Nanomaterials found microplastics can breach the blood-brain barrier.

A July 2023 study published in the journal International Journal of Molecular Sciences found that microplastics infiltrated all systems of the body. The researchers found that plastic particles bioaccumulate in every organ. “The brain blood barrier is supposed to be very difficult to permeate. It is a protective mechanism against viruses and bacteria, yet these particles were able to get in there. It was actually deep in the brain tissue,” said Professor Jaime Ross, one of the study’s authors. The researchers found that the infiltration of microplastics was as widespread in the body as it is in the environment. They found that microplastic exposure induces both behavioral changes and alterations in immune markers in liver and brain tissues. The study mice began to move and behave peculiarly, exhibiting behaviors akin to dementia in humans. The results were even more profound in older animals. “To us, this was striking. These were not high doses of microplastics, but in only a short period of time, we saw these changes,” Ross said.

A February 2024 study published in the journal Toxicological Sciences found microplastics in all the placenta samples tested. Prof. Matthew Campen at the University of New Mexico who led the research, said: “If we are seeing effects on placentas, then all mammalian life on this planet could be impacted. That’s not good.”

And a May 2024 preprint study confirmed that microplastics bioaccumulated in human livers, kidneys and brains. Shockingly, the brain samples contained on average about 10 to 20 times more than the other organs. The researchers looked at 12 brain samples from people who had died with dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease. These brains contained up to 10 times more plastic by weight than healthy samples. The study also found the quantity of microplastics in brain samples from 2024 was about 50% higher from the total in samples that date to 2016, suggesting the concentration of microplastics found in human brains is rising at a similar rate to that found in the environment.

The groundbreaking report, Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health, published in March 2023 in the journal Annals of Global Health, makes it clear that a worldwide moratorium on single-use, fossil fuel-based plastics (produced from coal, oil and fracked gas) is necessary. The report concludes that plastic causes environmental damage and premature death at every stage of its life cycle, from production to use and disposal.

“These findings put us on an unequivocal path to demand the banning or severely restricting of unnecessary, avoidable, and problematic plastic items, many of which contain hazardous chemicals with links to horrific harm to people and the planet,” says report co-author, Dr. Sarah Dunlop.

Dr. Phillip Landrigan, epidemiologist and pediatrician, also a co-author, says: “Plastics are full of thousands upon thousands of really toxic chemicals. Some of them can cause cancer. Some of them can cause birth defects in babies. Some of them can cause brain damage. Some can disrupt the functioning of the endocrine system of the human body. And because plastic waste can contain all of these nasty materials, you can’t just recycle it and put it into food packaging.”

A September 2023 study, published in the journal JAMA Psychiatry, found pregnant women may experience a greater risk of postpartum depression when exposed to a specific class of chemicals known as phthalates — ubiquitous chemicals found in numerous personal care and plastic consumer products, including food packaging.

Microplastics and toxic chemicals go hand in hand. The two cannot be separated. And both are dangerous to human health.

Ongoing research by Adrift Lab has linked ingestion of plastics by seabirds to sublethal health effects. Their January 2023 study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials found multi-organ damage in seabirds from ingesting microplastic fragments. A follow-up February 2023 study concluded that ingested plastic was causing scarring of the birds’ proventriculus, part of the digestive system, in a phenomenon they call “plasticosis.”

It is reasonable to expect that microplastics could be causing organ damage and scarring in humans. “In my view, plasticosis could be a sign that a new age of disease is upon us because of human overuse of plastics and other long-lasting contaminants, and their leakage into the environment,” writes Dr. Matt Savoca, a conservation biologist.

In light of the growing body of scientific evidence about plastics, the shedding of microplastics, and the toxic chemicals they leach under real-world use, we believe the organic sector should urgently research and identify alternatives.

There is no such thing as “food grade” plastic or “safe” plastic made from petrochemicals.

We recommend phasing out petrochemical-based plastics for the storage and packaging of food and consumer products such as cosmetics.

6. Require a separate certification label for hydroponics.

Hydroponic operations do not follow the National Organic Program requirement of stewarding the soil because hydroponic crops are not grown in healthy soil. Hydroponic operations use inputs such as sterile growing mediums in plastic containers and “proprietary” nutrient solutions. To make matters worse, some operations have been found to be using herbicides such as glyphosate-based Roundup in their operations.

Hydroponically-produced fruits and vegetables shouldn’t be allowed to be certified Organic at all. In fact, Canada and Europe prohibit hydroponic farms and products to be certified as Organic.

But if the USDA continues to allow this internationally rogue practice to continue, then Organic consumers have the right to know how their food is being produced.

And soil-based Organic farmers following the law deserve an even competitive playing field.

Hydroponic foods must be labeled in a way that clearly identifies the foods as being produced using hydroponic methods and not grown in soil. Packaging and labels should contain clearly visible text words such as “hydroponic product,” hydroponically produced,” or similar wording.

7. Prohibit polluting CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, also known as factory farms) from being certified Organic.

Shoppers of Organic meats, eggs and dairy would not expect that those foods would come from factory farms.

Animals raised in CAFOs or in confinement situations are subjected to unnatural and cruel living conditions and practices. In most cases, animals such as cows, pigs and chickens are packed so tightly that they have no room to move. In dairy CAFOs, cows are not given enough space to lie down or are only allowed to roam within grassless lots. In pig CAFOs, pregnant sows are confined for their entire lives in gestation cages with no room to turn around. Chickens raised in CAFOs most often never see the light of day. These animals experience unnecessary pain and suffering from living in their own excrement, in horrid and filthy conditions.

CAFOs are also linked to the ill health of nearby residents and “are directly associated with the social and economic decline of rural communities,” according to the American Public Health Association. Additionally, CAFOs are responsible for massive air, water and environmental pollution that extends well beyond the areas where the CAFOs are sited. CAFOs are not sustainable.

Operations that fall under the USDA’s definition of a CAFO – an intensive animal feeding operation (AFO) in which over 1,000 animal units are confined for over 45 days a year – should be prohibited in Organic certification.

The post Organic Concerns Everyone Should Be Talking About on Earth Day appeared first on GMO / Toxin Free USA.

I cannot overstate the importance of our lawsuit against Synthetic Biology company, Perfect Day, announced on the newswire with our press release today.

Would you make a gift today so we can continue to fight against unregulated GMO “food” products entering the market?

Synthetic biology (synbio) is an extreme form of genetic engineering that our government has chosen not to regulate. Products such as the nutritionally devoid and potentially harmful synthetic dairy created with Perfect Day’s ProFerm enter our food supply with no independent testing and absolutely no requirement for a bioengineered food (GMO) label.

Health Research Institute (HRI), an accredited, public-interest laboratory, analyzed ProFerm and a related product, along with certified-biodynamic and certified-organic whole cow’s milk.

• ProFerm is only 13.4% cow’s whey protein.
• 86.6% of ProFerm proteins are fungal proteins.
• ProFerm contained 93 fungal compounds not found in cow’s whey.
• The fungal proteins and compounds are unknown to science, have never been part of the human diet, and are by-products of the GMOs used in the fermentation process.
• “Milk” produced with ProFerm contains only a fraction of the nutritional value of cow’s milk, missing 69 nutrients and containing no omega 3, fatty acids, or vitamins B2, B5, and E.

By HRI’s assessment, the novel compounds and proteins in ProFerm could be or become toxic, allergenic, disruptive to nutrition and biome function, and cause dysbiosis, making them potentially unsafe for human consumption.

Yet Perfect Day and brand partners market ProFerm as safe, sustainable, identical to cow-derived whey protein, capable of creating milk identical to cow’s milk, including its nutritional profile, and free from GMOs.

Something is very wrong here. So we’re taking it to the courts to protect Americans.

The staff at GMO/Toxin Free USA fights for transparency and truth in marketing to protect you and all American consumers. Public education is key. Consumer Protection lawsuits bring accountability to the marketplace.

Do you value our work? Unfortunately, due to the level of financial and other uncertainties currently experienced in the U.S., our donations have decreased to an unsustainable level. Please donate what you can today to help keep our small but mighty nonprofit alive.

With gratitude,

Diana Reeves

Executive Director

The post GMO/Toxin Free USA Sues Perfect Day For Misleading Claims About “Animal Free Dairy” appeared first on GMO / Toxin Free USA.

Bayer-Monsanto notched its first victory in a nationwide effort to shield itself from pesticide-harm lawsuits.

On Thursday, the Georgia House of Representatives passed SB144 (101 Yea/58 Nay), largely along party lines. The bill passed the Georgia Senate (42 Yea/12 Nay) on March 4, also largely along party lines.

See the Georgia Senate roll call votes HERE

See the Georgia House roll call votes HERE.

SB144 doesn’t just benefit Bayer, it gives ALL pesticide manufacturers and agricultural chemical producers legal immunity from any harm caused by their products. In addition to over 175,000 Roundup lawsuits against Bayer-Monsanto, there are over 5,800 filed against ChemChina-Syngenta by individuals who developed Parkinson’s disease after exposure to the company’s paraquat herbicide. Bayer and the pesticide industry have been heavily lobbying state legislatures and the U.S. EPA since last year, but Georgia’s  bill was the first to pass.

This year, Republican lawmakers have sponsored bills in at least 11 states, including Georgia. Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wyoming have similar bills.

If you are a resident in any of these states, we urge you to take action now to protect individual rights and freedoms, for all of us. If you know anyone in any of these states, urge them to take action as well.

Read more and take action on our “Monsanto Protection Act State Pesticide Immunity Bills” blog. We’ve set up individual actions for each state, Click HERE, or use this link:

https://toxinfreeusa.org/monsanto-protection-act-state-pesticide-immunity-bills

The post Monsanto Protection Act Passes In Georgia appeared first on GMO / Toxin Free USA.

Last month, we asked you to take action urging the U.S. EPA to reject a petition submitted on January 21 from 11 State Attorneys General that would change pesticide labeling regulations to shield Bayer-Monsanto, and other pesticide manufacturers, from pesticide-harm lawsuits.

Bayer’s lobbying efforts don’t stop at the federal level. The corporation is puppeteering state politicians to do their bidding as well. We need you to take action again.

If you are a resident of any of the states below, please take action today. Click on the picture corresponding to your state. If you don’t live in any of these states, please spread the word and share far and wide!

Last year, four state legislatures – Iowa, Idaho, Missouri and Florida – introduced bills written by Bayer that would kill the Roundup/cancer lawsuits, now numbering over 170,000, that threaten to bury the company. Thanks to grassroots protest, none of the bills made it past the finish line.

Bayer vowed to restart and expand efforts this year and the company is moving fast. As of today, at least 20 state legislatures have drafted or introduced the Monsanto Protection Act bill, and Bayer has more support this time around.

The Monsanto Protection Act is furthest along in Iowa, where “Senate Study Bill 1051” was introduced on January 28 and passed a Senate subcommittee on February 5. Local groups opposing the bill are calling it the “Cancer Gag Act.” Whatever we all decide to call it, one thing is clear. We must stop this bill.

Iowa has the second-highest rate of new cancer cases in the U.S. and that rate is growing faster than any other state.

A July 2024 study published in the journal Frontiers in Cancer Control and Society concluded that “the impact of pesticide use on cancer incidence may rival that of smoking” and “counties with higher agricultural productivity, such as the leading corn-producing states of the Midwest, also have increased cancer risk due to pesticide exposure.” The study found the amount of pesticides used on farms was strongly associated with the incidence of many cancers – leukemia; non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; bladder, colon, lung, and pancreatic cancer – not only for farmers and their families, but for entire communities.

Yet, Iowa’s state politicians want to throw their farmers and residents under the bus to protect Bayer-Monsanto’s poison profits. Unconscionable.

Even conventional farmers see the danger ahead: “We’re very worried. Our farmers feel that if they have injuries or illnesses due to their use of a pesticide they should have access to the courts. We just don’t think the playing field should be tilted.” said Aaron Lehman, a corn and soybean farmer and president of the Iowa Farmers Union.

The Des Moines Register reported: Fourth-generation Iowa farmer Seth Watkins from Clarinda said farm chemicals caused life-threatening health risks for his twin daughters when they were born. One of his daughters did not survive. “In 2004, we did not have the data or the understanding of the impact chemicals like atrazine, glyphosate and nitrogen have on birth defects and cancer,” he said. “Today, we know that atrazine is a proven endocrine disruptor and a leading cause of abdominal wall birth defects.” He asked the lawmakers to reject the bill, adding that lawsuits over farm pesticides aren’t filed to make financial gains.

“I feel like we need accountability here in Iowa,” said Nick Schutt, a part-time farmer whose mother, father, aunt and two siblings have all had cancer diagnoses. “At the end of the day, multinational chemical companies like Bayer should be held accountable.”

The Monsanto Protection Act is at various stages in other state legislatures as well: Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wyoming.

The Monsanto Protection Act has already passed the House in North Dakota, with no opposition. Thankfully, in Mississippi and Wyoming, the bills died in committee. But residents of these states should still take action to log their opposition to any future bills.

GMO/pesticide lobbying groups like CropLife America, American Farm Bureau Federation, and Iowa Farm Bureau Federation don’t care about the health of farmers or their communities. Only corporate profits. A group called Protecting America Initiative ran a television ad in central Missouri during Super Bowl Sunday urging support for the deceptive legislation. The group has been running the same ad more broadly across Missouri and in Iowa, reports Associated Press.

These groups and their allies have been claiming that the bills are not pesticide immunity bills. THEY ARE LYING. Help us stop all of the Monsanto Protection Act bills in every state. If you are a resident in any of the active states, take action today. If you have family and friends in any of these states, please share. We can’t give pesticide companies permission to poison!

List of states and bill numbers:

Florida HB129/S992

Georgia SB144

Idaho HB303

Iowa SB394

Mississippi HB1221 (Died In Committee on 02/04/2025)

Missouri HB544

Montana HB522

North Dakota HB1318

Oklahoma HB1755

Tennessee HB0809/SB0527

Wyoming HB0285 (Died in Committee on 03/03/2025)

Bayer-Monsanto may be throwing the kitchen sink at us. But we can beat them with People Power.

Your Voice matters,

The GMO/Toxin Free USA Team

P.S. Bayer has millions to spend on lobbying and advertising. But we don’t. The effort to fight the Monsanto Protection Act on many fronts is putting a strain on our resources. Please consider making a donation to help us win these battles. Thank you.

The post Monsanto Protection Act State Pesticide Immunity Bills appeared first on GMO / Toxin Free USA.